Earlier this evening, I was able to call in to a tele-townhall on the important and urgent issue of immigrant dumping in Arizona. The tele-townhall was hosted by gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey and also included Maricopa County Attorney, Bill Montgomery. Approximately 3,000 individuals also joined in on the call.

The issue of immigrant dumping began last week when the federal government began busing illegal border crossers from Texas to Arizona and other locations. What is especially disturbing is that many of these immigrants are unaccompanied minors and women and small children.

Many of these individuals are being dropped at the Greyhound Bus depot in Phoenix in the middle of the Arizona heat. (Breitbart’s Brandon Darby wrote a feature article about this last week.)

Tonight’s call with State Treasurer Doug Ducey and MCAO Bill Montgomery revealed that the Obama administration is the driving force behind the immigrant dumping taking place. Montgomery even went as far as to describe the situation as a humanitarian crisis in the making. Because many of these immigrants are being dropped off in the heat of summer, Montgomery explained how under normal Arizona law this type of offense (abandoning a minor under 16) would be prosecuted as a class 4 felony child abuse.

Doug Ducey affirmed Montgomery’s claim that this was a humanitarian crisis developing and that President Obama had created yet another “national scandal” that it was not willing to take responsibility for.

Both Ducey and Montgomery were adamant in their charge that the federal government was not acting in the best interest of the immigrants, taxpayers, law-abiding citizens or the State of Arizona.

Several callers asked question during the call including Diane in Mesa who wanted to know how much illegal immigration was costing Americans. Another caller asked why or what the Governor could do. One caller asked about the response of Republicans to which both Ducey and Montgomery agreed that faith-based organizations can and are playing a role in addressing the immediate need to help.

Given Arizona’s inherent geographical location, this issue is not going away anytime soon and both Montgomery recognize that. But Doug Ducey remains committed to border security and putting pressure on the federal government to enforce existing laws and empowering Arizona to fulfill its role.

As Arizona’s next Governor, I am confident that Doug Ducey will mount a proper response to federally-manufactured crisis like this while advocating and soliciting humanitarian assistance from Arizonans who understand the need to enforce the law while being compassionate to those in need.

To send a message to the Obama Administration on this issue and others, please sign the petition Stop Obama!

Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”

Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform. Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.

The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion. Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve. Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.

During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light. Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.

During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,

“When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions. They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken. We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.

You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed. http://briefs.maricopagop.org/ Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.

Warmest regards,

A. J. LaFaro

Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee

P.S. Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week’s vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner’s —details here on the president’s plan— the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.

The media is focused on speculation about the “big deal” and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.

But Bentley’s position on the exchange –he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no– is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.

Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed —by the Sooners’ AG, and the amended complaint is here— and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.

8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.

9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.

10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.

11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange. Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.

12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.

This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state’s legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.

States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country’s leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown’s Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state’s legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the “is the penalty a tax” debate.

Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.

But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.

The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn’t. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun. The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The left scored a knock-down with the president’s re-election, but the fight isn’t over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president’s re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won’t be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.

Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president’s head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.

But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.

Also speaking:

Prescott Valley Mayor Harvey Skoog

This forum is free and open to the public.

For more information or to RSVP, please call Paul Layeux at 602.955.2186
or email arizonaenergyforum@live.com.

The Arizona Energy Forum is a bipartisan coalition of Arizona citizens that support energy
policies that protect our nation’s energy and economic security, hearby protecting American jobs, and keeping energy prices low for American families.

This video was created as part of YouTube Town Hall, answering the question “GOVERNANCE: Why has partisan bickering taken hold in Congress? Compromise is necessary for the benefit of the American people. Do you have to always vote along party lines? Can we learn to compromise again?”. To view the debate and choose the side, please visithttp://www.YouTube.com/YTTownHall.

About Sonoran Alliance

Arizona's most popular and prominent political blog covering political news and events, commentary and information with a blatantly conservative worldview. We are an alliance of writers, activists, consultants and government insiders.